HKSAR v. Dao Thi Thu Hue

DCCC 1012/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1012 OF 2013

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to four charges of theft and one charge of attempted theft. All the offences were committed on the same day, 20 August 2013, in Langham Place which is in Mong Kok.

2.In each of the four theft cases, the property stolen was a mobile phone and the combined value of the mobile phones is $16,800.  The area where the offences were committed is a notorious area for pickpockets.

3.On the day in question a team of plainclothes police officers was on duty, specifically looking out for pickpockets.  They spotted the defendant in H&M.  The facts describe the defendant as cruising around, looking at other female customers’ bags and rucksacks.  The defendant was clearly there for the purpose of pickpocketing. 

4.The victim in the 5th charge was close to the entrance of the H&M shop.  The police noticed the defendant near to the victim, she was holding a dress and a coat hanger and she was obviously using this to disguise her actions in unzipping the rucksack of the victim from behind.  The defendant had her hand inside the victim’s rucksack when the victim turned round and at the same time the officers rushed towards the defendant to arrest her.

5.The officers searched the defendant’s black carrier cotton bag and inside they found the four mobile phones, the subject of Charges 1 to 4. 

6.The owners of the mobile phones were traced and they confirmed that they had their property stolen that day; two of them said it was in Mong Kok their phones had been stolen and two said it was actually in Langham Place.

7.At the police station the defendant made an unequivocal admission of all the offences.  She said that at the time she was short of money, she was in receipt of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance and did not have sufficient money to give to her daughter. 

8.The defendant has an appalling record.  She has appeared in court on a regular basis since 1995.  She had 17 previous convictions, 12 of them were for theft and the last two, I note, were specifically for offences of pickpocketing.  She has been to prison on a number of occasions. In September 2011 she was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment for theft. 

9.In mitigation, I was told that the defendant is 39 years of age.  She came to Hong Kong in 1989 when she was aged 10.  She was educated to secondary 3 standard in Hong Kong but found that as she only spoke a little Cantonese and could not read Chinese characters, there were limited opportunities for her educationally in Hong Kong.  I am told that her husband died in 2007 in an industrial accident and that she has suffered from depression since that time. 

10.I am also told that her parents live in Vietnam.  Her mother has contracted cancer and she is eager to find funds to pay for her medical expenses.  I am told that the defendant is now remorseful about the offences she has committed. 

11.Theft of mobile phone is a serious problem in Hong Kong.  It causes huge inconvenience to the owners, many of whom store a large volume of personal information on the phones, and they are not able to contact their family members.  I noted that the total value of the phones in this case is $16,800. 

12.In taking a starting point, I take the view that 15 months is an appropriate starting point for the offence itself.  That sentence must be increased because the offences were committed in crowded places, places which are notorious for pickpockets.  I also take into account that the defendant has an appalling record for offences of dishonesty.

13.Taking into account those factors, I take a starting point for each offence a sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment. 

14.I also have to take into account the question of totality.  These are separate offences and it would be wrong in principle to order that all of them should be served concurrently.  I order that 3 months of the offences on Charges 4 and 5 should run consecutive to the offences on Charges 1 to 3. 

15.The defendant is entitled to a reduction in sentence to reflect the fact that she has pleaded guilty.  So the overall sentence in respect of each offence will be a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.  In respect of Charges 4 and 5, 2 months of that sentence will run consecutive to the sentences on  Charges 1 to 3, so that will make a total of 20 months’ imprisonment.